Beavah

20-something year old grad student ... saw what he saw and didn't call the Police. But did testify before da grand jury. Not sure what your point is, Engineer61. The competent, older, family men who were regulars in the program chose to do nothing and cover it up. At least da grad student reported it to folks he thought would respond. Though, I will admit, had I been that grad student the fellow would not have left the building under his own power. On a stretcher or in handcuffs, or both. No question. No doubt. No regrets. Yeh rescue the kid first. But I understand where most folks in such circumstances like that when they're completely unprepared for what they saw just get caught up for a bit simply not believin' they actually saw what they thought. I mean, who can imagine such a thing? Beavah

Yah, I agree with Buffalo Skipper, eh? Knowledge is more important than gear, and can substitute for some gear. For me, it's always sufficient layers to spend a not-too-uncomfortable night out, full rain gear, headlamp, first aid kit, knife, water (and at least a method or two to purify more), food/gorp, map & compass, somethin' to start fire with, and some sunscreen/insect repellent/head net if need be. All that can fit in a light pack or fanny pack and come in under 5-7 lbs. No hassles. I'm not a phone/GPS'er. Batteries tend to die too quickly and the things just annoy me. Easier just to navigate straight away from da terrain and a map. I'm also like packsaddle, and don't worry at all about solo hiking/paddling/sailing. When solo I know my limits and stay well within 'em, and if some random act of God gets me, well, He's welcome to come get me whenever He thinks it's time. Mrs. Beavah is well provided for, and I'd rather spend my last hours in the woods than some hospital bed hooked up to machines that go beep. Beavah

The phrase "use it or lose it" comes to mind. Yah, yah, sure. For elderly folks like OGE or da Beavah, perhaps, where it can be a decade or two since yeh last did somethin'. Once you're over the hill it's easy to roll downhill. But that's not what we're talkin' about when we're talkin' about kids. A lad who knows how to play soccer as a 7th grader still knows how to play soccer as an 8th grader. A boy who knows how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide still knows arithmetic after a whole summer of not usin' it. And if he doesn't, then he never learned in the first place. Talk to a boy sometime about Harry Potter or some other "favorite" book or video game or sports team. Months after reading it or playing it they can quote passages and describe plays and tell yeh exactly how to beat the monster on the 3rd level. In detail. If they can't do that for a basic scout skill, then they never learned it in the first place. Some lazy adult just pencil-whipped a requirement. Beavah

For people who will ignore anything positive in the report and only rip it to shreads to find things that were done wrong so that you can jeer and heckle and strut around with superior attitudes of how much better they are then all that.. Yah, hmmm.... I'm da last one to not afford fellow volunteers the benefit of the doubt, eh? But there are times... The whole point of accident and incident reporting, though, is so that we can "rip it to shreds to find things that were done wrong". The "true act of God" accidents there's nothing to learn from, eh? It's da ones where people screwed up that have lessons to teach us. Better to learn from the mistakes of others than to make every mistake ourselves. But to learn from such things requires a certain sort of brutal honesty, because most accidents and incidents really do have a strong "boneheaded move" component, and lots more have a "failed judgment" component. So far, I think all of the criticism has been pretty fair. Missing a trail turn? No big deal, that happens to everyone. Lettin' da group get split up? Bad form, some procedural failures, but it does happen sometimes. Being ill-equipped for a November hike in New England? That's pretty boneheaded. Not being able to navigate? That's a big issue. Not knowin' what to do when lost or out on your own? An even bigger issue. Remember, if a heat-seeking equipped helicopter weren't available or weren't able to fly because of the conditions, this group would have been out overnight without being found... perhaps have been out for days without being found. Ill-equipped and apparently unable to even build a fire, that could have had a very bad outcome. Recognizing that isn't jeering and heckling, it's analyzing and judging. That's how we learn. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, that's an interestin' one, Engineer61. Goes to John-in-KC's point. Out west it's really funny, because yeh have people who live at lower altitudes and by and large never see or experience snow on da roads as a regular part of life. So they go up into da mountains and hit snow or ice and are often incompetent. Reminds me once of drivin' through north Georgia or southern North Carolina when they were gettin' some flurries. Only a couple of inches of snow on da road. Got to a point where the state police were closing the highway. So being an EMT and figurin' they had some big accident or somesuch, I stopped and asked what was up. They tell me da road was closed for snow, and I just started laughin'. Trooper asks me where I'm from, I mention my northern state credentials, and he just waves me through. Beavah

"First Class still signifies that a Scout hase mastered all of the basic Scouting Skills. " - ONCE Yah, hmmm... I have to admit this had me just laughin'. A bit like Bill Clinton debating what da meaning of "is" is. In a lot of ways, it illustrates just how badly da Advancement Method has deteriorated to the point where it's completely undermining our mission and values. Does anyone really believe that someone who has mastered a skill can't perform it on demand six months later? Goodness gracious! Better drop that CPR-trained individual requirement from Tour Plans for water activities. Can't expect that they'll "retain" knowledge and be able to use it. Mastery means yeh really know how to do it, eh? Yeh can really perform in the field. And if yeh really know how, yeh don't forget that easily. If yeh master reading, yeh still know how to read 6 months later. If yeh master bike riding, yeh can still ride a bike years later. And that's what we promise scouts and their families. We promise them that they will actually learn fun, adventurous, worthwhile skills. We promise them that ranks and badges actually mean somethin', and that they're worth putting in time and effort to work for. And we're tellin' the broader community that a First Class badge means something, and a Lifesaving MB means something, and an Eagle Scout Badge means something. Not that they did a task once upon a time, eh? It means they have skills and values that are useful now, that they have mastered things that will lead to success in work and college and life. Anything less, and we're failin' to deliver the Promise. We're cheatin' the boys, lyin' to the family, deceiving the community. That's not the Scouting program or Scouting Values. That's just lazy adults who aren't willin' to put da time into the program to actually help boys really learn. Beavah

Yah, not sure I ever think of any of this as "trust", eh? National publishes program materials. As a council or a unit, yeh either buy into 'em or yeh don't. Buyin' some of 'em doesn't mean buyin' all of 'em. Yeh can buy a Ford and be a loyal customer of Ford but still buy your tires from Goodyear and get your service work done by Joe's Mechanic Shop. Of course there are a few fellows who will wear Ford jackets and only use dealer service and genuine factory parts, but they're fairly rare. Councils and districts provide program resources. Yeh either buy into 'em or yeh don't. Most units use a variety of program resources, eh? Training from Red Cross, training from council, training from LNT. Council campsites, private campsites, public campgrounds. So I figure it's more like "am I getting a good value?". For $15 per person per year for program materials, I reckon National provides a good value for individuals and units. Scout Shop stuff includin' awards? About typical for a brand-name specialty store. Yeh can do better, quality-wise or cost-wise. For council corporations, I'm not sure da national charter is a good value. Comes with too much regulation and not enough support, and da structural regulation gets in da way of creativity and quality of service. For $0 down, fee-for-service, I reckon da district/council provides an OK value most of da time, but certainly there are councils where that's not the case. BSA summer camps tend to be cheap compared to da rest of the industry, both in $$ and in program quality. Training is similar. Individual unit support as well. We're sort of da low-cost, low-quality provider. If everything goes well, then yeh get a good deal, but there's also a fair chance of havin' a bad experience. As a donor, is da BSA a good investment? At the national level, probably not. Way too much overhead and way too little in da way of modern professionalism. Councils? Some yes, some no, but overall I'd say structurally they're not a very good user of donor $ either. Plus yeh have to worry about whether any endowment gifts yeh give are just goin' to survive da next round of pressure for mergers/sales. Not that any of da folks involved are bad people, it's just that da way things are set up and the current "corporate culture" many places isn't very healthy from an effective-NFP sort of perspective. There are lots better places to donate money. Can't see that "trust" comes into it anywhere, though. Beavah

Self-rescue, unless it becomes clear that no rescue is coming, is reckless for anyone - period. Nah. I think perhaps yeh don't understand da term, because it's sort of a term of art in da outdoor community. First Aid is a form of self-rescue, when da treatment allows the situation to be resolved in the field. Backtracking your route is a form of self-rescue. Simply goin' higher until yeh return to the summit yeh just left is a form of self-rescue. Doin' T-rescues with canoes is a form of self-rescue. In da BSA we teach preparedness and self-rescue, because that's just good citizenship, eh? Rather than relyin' on others when that's not necessary. Knowin' how to walk out is preferable to consuming hundreds of man-hours and thousands of dollars of resources. Self-rescue instruction is an integral part of any type of boating or other technical skill development. Heck, in da BSA, we not only teach self-rescue, we teach rescue! Self rescue is also safer. I've worked SAR, and I reckon at least 3/4 of the active SARs that are resolved positively happen because da "victims" walk out under their own power or reposition themselves into da path of rescuers. Barring da use of enormously expensive resources and a lot of luck (like a thermal-imaging equipped helicopter and da conditions to make use of that possible), locating lost individuals who are off-trail and under tree canopy in da backcountry is extraordinarily difficult. Often it requires a lot of volunteer and auxiliary responder participation, and poses risk to those rescuers. I once participated in a massive SAR for a downed Lear Jet in da New England mountains. With hundreds of pros and volunteers. The aircraft and victims were found 6 years later by hunters. Off-trail, under canopy is just plain hard, even when it's an aircraft and not an individual. Yah, sure, we're not expecting anybody to self-rescue from appendicitis in da field. Knowin' when help is really required and how to get to it is also important. But we should be more than just dependent lumps who can't manage to do anything more than operate a cell phone and demand someone else take responsibility for our situation. Beavah

Those who have hiked these kinds of trails, common in New England and the Appalachians, know how easy it can be to miss the trail blazes... etc. etc. Yah, sure. But dealin' with that is normal outdoorsmanship. It takes an ordinary amount of skill, which any First Class Scout should have. Plus it is November in New England, eh? Gettin' snowed on hard would also be normal. Goin' out on a long hike without headlamps/lights, without adequate layers, etc. Again, to my mind that doesn't show even an ordinary amount of skill that any First Class scout should have. These folks did exactly what we're supposed to teach them - when you get lost, stay where you are, and try to contact help. Back in the 70's, it meant carrying a whistle. So what if it's a cell phone - think of it as a modern day whistle. Yah, and if that's what we're really teachin' shame on us. Hug-a-tree is good advice for a 6-year-old "lost" in a front-country park. It's terrible advice for someone off-trail in da backcountry. Absent fancy technology and some luck, staying put off-trail in da middle of a forest is an almost certain death sentence. Some hunter is goin' to find da bodies 5 years from now. It just ain't possible to successfully grid search backcountry under canopy over da kind of area that would be required. What's necessary if you're goin' to travel in these conditions is da ability to self-rescue, eh? That's what Scouting should be teachin'. How to get yourself from where yeh are to a spot more likely to be picked up by searchers, or how to signal, or just how to navigate well enough to get yourself un-lost. Gotta agree with da majority. This was a case of "cell phone reliance" at its worst. Beavah

The simple fact is that many decades of rising housing prices and government encouragement of debt made everyone sloppy, careless and stupid. That's why bubbles happen.... But right now ---- WHEEE! Go for it! Nah, that's not why bubbles happen. Bubbles have been happening since the dawn of economics, long before government-driven stuff. They happen because humans tend to be herd animals, and stupid, and greedy when left to their own devices. And a bit too optimistic to boot. Da "WHEE! Go for it!" mentality is an individual one. Democratic governments just follow da sentiments of a majority of their citizens when da greedy herd starts stampeding. It's da nature of democracy. Beavah

I think the Bank Bailouts were terribly wrong. The banks should have been allowed to fail, so that the market could correct without government interference. Yah, I'm certainly sympathetic to da argument. Problem is it really would have been Great Depression II. Things were so convoluted it's taken nearly 3 years to try to straighten out who owed what, and some of da major banks still aren't really solvent, eh? Remember that after da Great Depression, congress granted statutory immunity for bank directors for misfeasance, eh? In exchange for that get out of jail free card and da ability to protect their personal assets, and the guarantee of federal deposit insurance, da banks accepted federal regulation. Under Clinton, da Republicans led by Phil Graham (who should have gone to jail for takin' bank bribes) repealed the regulation, but left all the benefits in place - banks still offered deposit insurance, and directors still have immunity. If yeh want real free market, yeh have to repeal both of those, eh? People have to have an incentive to look into whether the bank they put their money in is responsible. And they should be able to sue the bank directors back into da stone age if they gamble with depositor funds. Had we not bailed out da banks, we would have had to spend that much money bailing out da depositors anyways, because of federal deposit insurance. There just would have been a huge tax on da wealthy, since anything on deposit above da FDIC limit would be lost. . And da directors would have skated. I think it's a perfectly reasonable argument to repeal ALL da regulations. People will then be inclined to move their money back into small, local banks where they know the directors and can watch da finances more closely. I think, given da history of the U.S., though, that adds a lot of economic friction. Da average person doesn't have the time or expertise to really evaluate the solvency of their bank. Heck, if we believe da bank CEOs, even they can't manage to do that. . In that case, regulation is more reasonable, eh? We do da same thing for other specialty areas. Da average person doesn't have da expertise to evaluate da safety and maintenance practices of airlines, so we regulate that. Successfully. By having that regulation, we have da safest air transport system in the world, so that da average person can rely on it. We probably want da same thing for deposit banks. But that regulations has to come with severe penalties for those who deliberately put da system at risk in pursuit of short-term, highly leveraged "profits" with other people's money. If an airline cuts corners, da directors are liable, da execs can go to jail, da individual pilots and mechanics who go along with it lose their licenses and livelihood if they don't go to jail themselves. Every participant faces severe penalties, and that helps build a culture of professional responsibility. Not a perfect one, as enforcement has been required on occasion. But a solid one. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, if it always rains when Boy Scouts go campin', do we now have to worry about earthquakes if they camp near a fault? Glad yeh folks made it through the temblors in good order! Beavah

Of course that description also fits union bosses... And CEOs, bankers, and attorneys, eh? I'm curious, JoeBob. What do yeh think of da bailout CEOs gettin' 8-figure bonuses? Do yeh think banks should be makin' 10-20% "profit" in various transactions for producing...nothing? Especially when they are not takin' any risk, since they are "too big to fail"? Most importantly, when a bank or a brokerage house makes "big profits" for bonuses and such, where do yeh think it comes from, since they aren't actually producing any real products? Beavah

We, as parents, are constantly being harped at to "take responsibility" for our kids well being .. I think that is what these parents did. Yah, sure. They made their kids less safe, and deprived 'em of a role model that might have made a real difference for the younger lads. We just spent 7+ years training that young man. Yeh think it's safer to send kids into the woods with well-rounded middle-aged men who aren't even required to take a one-weekend IOLS course? Statistically it's far more likely that one of the dads will molest a boy, eh? And probably more likely that da young, college-aged ASM will be the fellow that reports it, rather than his fellow parent drinkin' buddies. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Engineer61, but we're not talkin' about modern Arizona law in this case, eh? We're talkin' about California law 30 years ago. Besides, yeh shouldn't mess with a Beavah when you're swimmin' in his pond. Da law isn't like da Bible, eh? Yeh need to understand context and terminology before yeh quote it. Legislators and legal types don't use English da same way that most of da rest of the world does. In da case of the Arizona statute, the part yeh left out matters a lot, eh? It reads "For the purposes of this subsection, "person" means 1. Any physician, physician's assistant, optometrist, dentist, osteopath, chiropractor, podiatrist, behavioral health professional, nurse, psychologist, counselor or social worker who develops the reasonable belief in the course of treating a patient; 2. Any peace officer, member of the clergy, priest or christian science practitioner; 3. The parent, stepparent or guardian of the minor; 4. School personnel or domestic violence victim advocate who develop the reasonable belief in the course of their employment." (ARS 13-3620A) That's why da information pages your Arizona Department of Economic Security post on their site say essentially da same thing as I said earlier. Arizona does not require any citizen to report. Here's a better source for a summary than the advocacy group Engineer61 linked to. Yeh still have to be a bit careful about da language, but the presentation is more forthright and objective. http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/manda.cfm Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

In 1974, the federal Child Abuse and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was enacted which funded many state protection program. At this time, most states started mandatory child abuse reporting laws. "Mandatory" in that there was a list of people required to report child abuse or neglect - school personnel, medical professionals, police, child care providers,... report as in drop a dime and call the police or Child Protective Services, not write a memo in a notebook and put on a shelf. Yah, hmmm.... Just to be clear for everyone. A stranger, coach, or scouter who molests a kid is NOT "child abuse" as defined by CAPTA and da laws of most of the states. It's some form of sexual battery. Child abuse is somethin' that a parent or guardian does to a kid. Mandatory reporting laws historically, and still in most cases, apply only to child abuse, and in most states still apply only to those professionals who are in a unique position to be able to assess quality of parenting - teachers, physicians, social workers, etc. There is longstanding jurisprudence that citizens are not required by law to intervene in or report crimes. Certainly we would consider it good citizenship to do so, but requiring people to report on their family, friends, neighbors, particularly when there are only suspicions, is somethin' that is only done in dictatorial regimes. So at no point in da case in question did the BSA ever violate either the letter or the intent of the law as it stood at da time, or even as it stands now. The issue of pressing charges was, and is, a parent one. I know da natural reaction of us Americans to anything bad that happens is to try to find someone to blame. Blame da perpetrators, people. In this case, blame da parole system that let the fellow out with no follow-up if yeh must. But expectin' that any organization can magically prevent this stuff is nuts. Engineer61, abuse by relatives is far more common than abuse by coaches/teachers/scouters/ministers all together. Your wife would be more productive banning uncles and grandparents and cousins from your home than keepin' a young adult Eagle Scout from helping with a troop. Beavah

My wife recently told me of a Adult application her troop received from an Eagle who is in a local university. He had not been a Scout in our troop ... they discussed his application and credentials and went silent ... after several moments of staring at each other, my wife finally said, "OK, I'll say what is on everyone's mind ... Why would a kid in college, with all the activities, workload and what not available to him want to be involved in a Troop that he's not been around; want to help us?" Yah, hmmm.... I have to admit, this just floored me. Even as da BSA has just created a whole new membership class - the "college scouter reserve" - units are out there rejecting da help of Eagle Scout young adults because they happen to have moved to a different town for college??? Anyone else runnin' into this? It's hard for me to find da right words to respond. Beavah

Yah, I'm not sure what this thread is about anymore... The late 1970s was a different time in a lot of ways. The sentiment was to trust authority, and also not to "expose" a victim who wanted to remain private. Workplace sexual harassment wasn't yet an issue. Da chronology here is interestin'. The fellow abused at least one kid in Canada for years, takin' the boy to his apartment instead of to Cub meetings (nobody ever noticed??). Then, not as a scout leader, he kidnaps a boy and steals a plane in California and is released on probation... with no follow-up by the state. Not sure why da BSA is to blame for that. The State of California probation system apparently made no effort to notify Canada nor to ensure he met da terms of his probation, which allowed him to sneak off and sign up as a BSA Camp Director. Remember, back then there weren't computers, and criminal background checks were difficult, rare, and easy to spoof. Where was da probation officer? He molests three lads after/outside of regular camp time, and the parents don't press charges. That was da way of things back then, and no county prosecutor was goin' to pursue a case where the victims wouldn't agree to file a complaint. So again, not da BSA's fault. They did what they could and started a file to try to keep him out of Scouting in da U.S. Then he goes back to Canada, where Scouts Canada still isn't aware of his previous molestation. I'm not sure what Scouts Canada or da BSA was supposed to do here. Was the BSA supposed to call every Scouts Canada troop and warn 'em? Remember, they're not as centralized as we are. Was Scouts Canada supposed to run a criminal background check in every province and U.S. State (remember, there weren't central registries back then)? The lad he molests in Canada is spending 3-4 nights every week at this fellow's house. Where in da world are the parents? How is Scouts Canada supposed to know this fer cryin' out loud? It's all happening outside of scouting time. Eventually he did enough questionable stuff on trips that they pushed him out, but none of da stuff on trips seemed to amount to abuse, so it wasn't like it was clear-cut from their perspective. Yah, in hindsight, had da parents in 1979 opted to press charges then someone would have figured out the fellow was supposedly still on probation and he would have gone to prison for a stretch. Then he still probably would have gone back to Canada and abused more boys. Leastways, if he survived prison. These cases are tragic, but I'm just not sure what da scouting folks were supposed to do. The biggest failures here seem to be of da criminal justice system and the parents. This does point to why YP rules don't protect kids, though. True to the pattern, all of the abuse mentioned in this article happened outside of regular scouting, where other adults weren't present and scouting rules just didn't apply. The fellow used his association with scouting to earn trust, for sure, but did not clearly break any scouting rules while servin' as a scout leader. That's why it's silly to go after "rulebreakers" like JoeBob, who have the audacity to take kids aboard an old warship for a sleepover in what amounts to one big room. That's never goin' to be a site or location of abuse. Abusers isolate kids, eh? Hanging partitions up all over da place to hide behind likely increases da opportunities for bad behavior compared with just sharin' a room with 50 people. In real life, yeh want to be somewhat mindful as parents and fellow leaders about what sort of contact is goin' on outside of scouting and other people, and yeh especially want every kid to have lots of people involved in his life as friends and mentors of all ages so that he can't be isolated by a predator. Beavah

Nah, jrush. Sin involves hurting yourself. Either directly, or indirectly by how yeh treat others. Either by commission, by doin' something wrong, or by omission, by failing to do something right when yeh could have. While sin does affect others and da world at large, its primary effect is the harm it does to our own best selves. And that's why it's a kindness to point out or correct the sins of others, at a time when they are willing to listen or truly need the admonishment. It's what any wise parent, or friend, or scoutmaster does for someone they care about. Beavah

He didnt follow youth protection and no one made him. How not? All da accusations appear to involve behavior outside of scouting, where youth protection rules don't apply. That, too, is da normal pattern, and the reason why "youth protection" by regulation doesn't actually protect youth. Its function is to protect da corporation from liability. I've dealt with a number of cases of this sort of thing. I'll admit, in many it's hard to resist da urge just to save the courts the time and trouble with the help of my shotgun. In others, the accused were innocent, but the devastation wreaked on their reputation and family necessitated they leave the community. Both happen. Honestly, da most common is not to have sufficient evidence in one way or another to be able to do much beyond separation. It's a very hard area. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... This is one of those areas where some prudence is required. There's a reason for statutes of limitations, eh? And they are particularly important for this sort of crime, where da accusation itself is so often taken as "proof". Imagine if, right now, a man of age 37 accuses you as a scouter of molesting him back when he was a boy. He's "repressed" da memory until now (in depression, alcohol and substance abuse, etc.), but he remembered when driving through the old neighborhood and seeing your expensive house. How do yeh defend yourself? Do yeh still have your campout and permission slip records from 20 or more years ago? Remember what happened on Saturday night at the Polar Bear campout in 1986? How many of da potential defense witnesses are still alive? Can still be located? There is a balance in these things, because not everyone who is accused is guilty, eh? It was dumb luck that da fellow who accused the former Catholic bishop of Chicago was found out, because some secretary somewhere kept the bishop's travel itinerary from many years before and the accuser was caught in the lie because da bishop had been out of town during the alleged incidents. Yeh don't want your life and reputation as a scouter to depend on da dumb luck of keeping 20+ year old records. These crimes are terrible. But so is convicting or levying a judgment against an innocent man or woman for this sort of thing. Statutes of limitations balance the rights of the accused in a case where the accusation, by itself, is devastating. Beavah

Yah, you'd think there would be savings, but they were talkin' about adding district executives, maintaining offices, and offered no plan for staff reduction. Assuming that they could cut at least a few business managers and office staff, any savings would be taken up by adding DEs. Da theory is that if only there were more DEs, there will be more kids joining. At least as close as I can tell. Guaranteed that since they seem to have pulled off this "interesting development" through a very fast railroad job in this area, you'll see it rolled out in some other areas in the coming years. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... Good luck to yeh folks in Michigan. I read through da proposal and frankly couldn't find a thing that made any sense to me, other than that they want to sell a bunch of camps to fund more executive salaries. Da size of the new council should guarantee that it's impossible to get the CORs to oppose such sales the way Chicago did. I predict you'll have 2/3 or less of da camps left in 7 years. Beavah

You can look up Gregory Ritter on Google, he killed himself on the morning he was to plead guilty to sexually assaulting a boy he met while serving as a Medical Officer at SUmmer Camp. Yah, hmmmm.... So I looked this up, OGE. A fellow with longstanding ties to da community and youth work, and only one allegation of misconduct? Where there were some questions of police playin' a bit fast and loose, social workers prompting responses, and where the fellow maintained his innocence. No reports of any other lads comin' forth? No clear physical evidence? A prosecutor willin' to accept a plea on one scaled down charge? I gotta say, hmmm.... To be sure, some of da reports fit the pattern, eh? Da alleged abuse happened at private sleepover at his house (what parent allows that?), with da obligatory porn videos. But there are also such things as false accusations, and false accusations use da pattern too, eh? It does point out that da "rules" are there primarily to help protect adults from false accusations of this sort of thing, of course. If we always keep kids at more than arms length in front of witnesses, that affords some defense. But it's also a reminder that these sort of bad actors succeed because they behave the way the very best teachers and scouters and ministers behave for da most part. They develop relationships with kids, they listen to kids, etc. They are good friends and mentors, who don't often quote "rules" because they spend their time caring instead. The best and the worst aren't always easy to tell apart. So it's very difficult to come up with any "rules" that won't simultaneously separate kids from all of the truly wonderful teachers and relatives and mentors out there that they need to grow up as sound men. As a lad I had a pastor who I would meet with privately in his home office, teachers who drove me home alone when I'd stayed late to help with some project, scouters who invited me into their workshop to work on MBs, an employer with whom I was usually da last one closin' up the shop. They were all important to me growin' up, and there wasn't a thing to 'em other than adults who felt it worth their time to help a young man along da path. Personally, I'm convinced that this is a risk that can't be avoided, just like da risk of dying in a car crash can't be avoided, eh? If we choose to drive a car, then that risk comes with it. If we choose to raise kids, then this risk comes with it. Thank goodness it's vastly smaller than da risk from automobiles, because we can't lock da kids up without causin' just as much harm. So we just have to be alert, drive responsibly, and make sure that one man isn't the only adult in a boy's life who listens to and values him, because that's what truly makes this behavior possible. Beavah

The council can also remove any merit badge counselor or any other adult volunteer for any reason or no reason. I am pretty sure they can also revoke any unit charter (that is probably the ultimate in authority.) That would be completely incorrect. The Scout Executive can revoke da membership of individuals, but only for cause, such causes being YP related or otherwise affecting da public reputation of the BSA, and subject to appeal and review by national. Only da national council can revoke a unit charter. And of course doin' anything like that over somethin' as trivial as a method of scouting or its paperwork would be ridiculous. Would we start revokin' charters over people not usin' da full Patrol Method, or not usin' da full outdoor method by goin' backpacking? Or perhaps by not being as good at Adult Association as we would like? That's where your approach really demonstrates that yeh view Advancement as a goal, and not just da method that it is. Because only if an organization did not share our goals and values would we ever consider revoking a charter. Advancement isn't a goal, and so da notion that advancement paperwork is a membership issue is just foolish. But da fact that so many folks treat it as a goal or a personal fiefdom is sad, particularly at da district and council level. While no doubt well-meaning, they have forgotten that the program is all about kids, and that da role of a council scouter is all about cheerful, friendly service to those front-line souls in units who do da real work with the lads. Beavah